I read somewhere that conventions changed after the parties realized people were actually watching them. The party bosses didn't like that. But they meant something then! These are about as exciting, and truthful, as infomercials. When did the primary system start, anyway?

And I hate the appropriation of real rock music to stage these things.

Agreed. I hate the appropriation of real rock music to stage these things, too. Same with sports. Baseball especially should stick to the organ.

On the other hand, I think music could really add a new dimension to the entrance that a politician makes. Joe Biden could walk from the political bullpen to the podium to the tune of "Wild Thing" by the Troggs, for example. And McCain could strut forth with that ridiculous Top Gun song playing. For Bill Clinton? "You're So Vain."

Of the one hundred things to do before death, number one would be: Don't watch political conventions. Sadly, I sampled the oratorical skills of Clinton, Kerry, and Biden....Clinton has managed to remove the wagging finger from his mannerisms. From what I saw he gave a good speech. He's really got those alpha dog moves down pat.....Kerry is so lugubrious. He should own a chain of funeral parlors.....Biden was pretty good--the little I saw. I know he has a history of plagiarism, but he can really imitate sincerity at a level comparable to Clinton's....Obama is far and away the best speaker, but he still has not got the alpha dog's moves down. Well if Clinton can suppress his wagging finger, Obama can learn to pat Biden on the back as though he were the mentor and not the supplicant.

I'm just sorry I'll be on the road tomorrow night and will miss it. The Greco-Roman coronation, the orgasmic media disciples, Will.I.Am reprising his hymn, er, song in Obama's honor. A once in a lifetime thing!

On the way in from my walk a woman who works in the apartment office asked me what I thought of Hillary's speech last night. I answered it was excellent. But then, Hillary is always excellent on mute. She could not accept someone grown weary of oratory to the point of it becoming like nails on a chalkboard. How was that possible with a speech so moving as that? She wonders.

The woman misunderstood. She thought my walk to the Civic Center and Capitol was because I was interested in activities connected with the convention. She didn't understand I was only interested in oddities.

As a kid I remember thinking that the ancient Greco-Roman emphasis on developing the skills of oratory was absurd — I thought it was concentrating on style as opposed to substance.

I was a member of the Masonic youth group Demolay as a teenager, and regarded that organization's emphasis on members learning to orate well was an oddity — by now, however, in my life, it seems like a major public service.

Indeed, now I wish there was a whole lot more of it, and that schools was deliberately taught it, along with writing skills. Hardly anything is more important — once one has encountered or invented decent ideas in the first place — than being able to communicate them effectively.

The blogger revolution is a good step for many people in this direction, but one should also be able to speak well as well as write.

EnigmatiCore said... Most people in real life learned early on that if you work hard in school and work hard after graduating and stay out of trouble that you don't end up going hungry.

That should be tattooed on the forehead of every single elected official. It should also be enacted as the official policy of the government. Hell, we could slash the budget in half and cut taxes by two thirds.

"The military thing sounds absurdly poorly done the way you've described it..."

It was probably perfectly done for the audience in the hall, which is what makes it so bad. The home viewer watches and thinks, yeah, that embodies what they think about the military: meaningless goals, confused, sad-faced soldiers, tinkly piano music, and coffins.

Spielberg deserves credit as an artist for absorbing the mindset so fully and manufacturing it into a little film.

ron: fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan

And if only Farve had called an option instead of throwing to the flat...

Look, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Left doesn't even understand that Afganistan and Iraq are different fronts in the same war. Go back to recliner mode and stuffing your face with corn chips.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."

Bauer has also written twice to the Justice Department demanding "prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" Simmons and AIP for violation of campaign laws and individual contribution limits. The problem is that, as the Annenberg papers show, the ad is breathtakingly true and accurate.

The only thing needing investigating is why Obama is trying so hard to hide his past. Full disclosure is change we can believe in.

I thought of Hillary's speech last night. I answered it was excellent. But then, Hillary is always excellent on mute. She could not accept someone grown weary of oratory to the point of it becoming like nails on a chalkboard.My wife had just gotten home and turned on the convention coverage (actually looking for the local news) when Hillary came on. Her voice is like nails on a chalkboard while the dentist is drilling one of your teeth with no Novocaine. I don't understand how people can listen to her.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk…

You should rephrase that to the Democratic Party VS 1st Amendment. Senator Harry Reid sent a very similar threatening letter on his Senate Stationary to Disney over that movie about 911 that portrayed bill Clinton so poorly. He also mentioned the risk to their broadcast license. Stomping on the constitution is acceptable to the Democratic Party if it achieves their aims; silencing all criticism.

In fact, I wonder if that's why Althouse was so peeved at the lack of coverage of the actual nomination, not that she had to find out it was already over by e-mail. But because the drama of the Clinton coup went up in smoke.

The problem is, as the McCain-Feingold legislation shows, the ad is breathtakingly illegal

Actually, no, McCain-Feingold was interpreted by the Supreme Court fairly narrowly as prohibiting advocacy ads for a particular candidate from a third party.

Outside parties can run attack ads, so long as they aren't co-ordinated with the person who would benefit. That's how the law has been applied since its unfortunate passage and ill advised upholding by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Nevertheless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War. With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core political speech, the "primary object of First Amendment protection." Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 410-411 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Because "the First Amendment 'has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office," Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)), our duty is to approach these restrictions "with the utmost skepticism" and subject them to the "strictest scrutiny." Shrink Missouri, supra, at 412 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

In response to this assault on the free exchange of ideas and with only the slightest consideration of the appropriate standard of review or of the Court's traditional role of protecting First Amendment freedoms, the Court has placed its imprimatur on these unprecedented restrictions. The very "purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail." Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 390 (1969). Yet today the fundamental principle that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting), is cast aside in the purported service of preventing "corruption," or the mere "appearance of corruption." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26 (1976) (per curiam). Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); nude dancers, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560 (1991) (plurality opinion); pornographers, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); flag burners, United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990); and cross burners, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. ___ (2003).

Because I cannot agree with the treatment given by Justice Stevens' and Justice O'Connor's opinion (hereinafter joint opinion) to speech that is "indispensable to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of popular government to shape the destiny of modern industrial society," Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 103 (1940), I respectfully dissent. I also dissent from Justice Breyer's opinion upholding BCRA §504. I join The Chief Justice's opinion in regards to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b); concur in the result as to §318; and dissent from the opinion as to §311. I also fully agree with Justice Kennedy's discussion of §213 and join that portion of his opinion. Post, at 37-38.

(yeah, not smart enough for the court, sure, Obama said so, so it must be true . . .)

fls: But I think it's fair for the Democrats to show how the Republicans have disrespected those brave warriors once discharged, by neglecting to care for their broken bodies and minds.

Oh bullocks. You don't care that the troops might have been "disrespected" by the GOP. You only care about them as a debating point. And the Left controls Congress anyway - where's your bill if you "care" so much?

How about starting out with free tuition AND books to all vets and their immediate family [kids, spouse] at [at least] any state university? Hello? You're calling your Senator right this moment, right? Didn't think so.

Hey, maybe you and the NYTs can dig up some corpses to dress up your political message?